For the first time, the leaker aka as FOIA has published
his thoughts...why he was driven to leak the information,
the players, and the e-mails that he found.

Not suprisingly, deep corruption, thick lies;
one of the most compelling finds was
a booklet on how to play The Game, with the
title of The Rules Of The Game: Evidence Base
For The Climate Change Communications Strategy

“Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance” and “Use emotions and visuals”

Obviously, the tactics above are right out of a
propaganda playbook rather than sound and proven science.

Here, a leaked email from Phil Jones:

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all
those working on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report would be to delete all e-mails at the
end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research
grants we get – and has to be well hidden.

Closing words from FOIA (the leaker)

That's right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil.
The Republicans didn't plot this.USA politics is alien to me,
neither am I from the UK.There is life outside the
Anglo-American sphere.

I have yet to see any convincing evidence that climate gate is anything other than people selling out to big-oil. The messages are always taken out of
context. I can see the story they're trying to sell with these tidbits, but see through it.

Pretty weak "evidence" that the science is off in the way deniers are attempting to shape it. If anything, the IPCC errs too far on the side of
caution. Their models are far off of the newest findings by the time the report is released.

Originally posted by CommanderCraCra
Their models are far off of the newest findings by the time the report is released.

Thats what happens when you have so many "scientists" with a sack of lies.

For 17 years the global average surface temperature has not increased. A 2009 “Climategate” email by Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate
alarm scientist, states: “There has been no global warming for a decade. We cannot explain why. It is a travesty that we can’t.”
staugustine.com...

I have yet to see any sound science proving Global Warming, many of those
on board have ever so carefully changed thier stance, hoping to slip out
without a damaged career. Got to keep that funding coming in, right?

Love how they tried hard to delete all of the trail....

“Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith Briffa re AR4 [the IPCC 4th Assessment Report]? Keith will do likewise. … We will
be getting Caspar Ammann to do likewise.”

Originally posted by CommanderCraCra
I have yet to see any convincing evidence that climate gate is anything other than people selling out to big-oil. The messages are always taken out of
context. I can see the story they're trying to sell with these tidbits, but see through it.

Pretty weak "evidence" that the science is off in the way deniers are attempting to shape it. If anything, the IPCC errs too far on the side of
caution. Their models are far off of the newest findings by the time the report is released.

Either you dont understand science, or you havent looked at the science used to defend it.

I used to bekieve in global warming, as it was taught to me in high school in the 90s. I graduated in 97. Nothing I was taught happened. So I began
looking, having a high aptitude in math and science, which I majored in at college, it wasnt hard to find data that simply destroys the absurd
notions.

I am not going to debate global warming again, it is pointless, believers will not accept any proof as proof of it fallacy. It is more like arguing
about religion than anything else, and imo dumber than beating my head against a wall.

So please just think for yourself, outside of your personal biases, and look back over the data again from an open minded perspective, to measure and
weight the data, and come to your own conclusions.

Does anybody know who is the head of NASA and the National Science Foundation? If you answered the Vice President of the US, give yourself an 'A'.
From 1992 to 2000 that would have been "Mr. Global Warming" himself Al Gore. Both of these agencies control large amounts of money that is awarded in
the form of grants. Let's face it, these scientists are not dumb, they know where their bread is buttered. When the grant money started flowing
towards the research that had the results that Mr. Gore wanted, some scientists started to get the message. So they had to "massage the data" a bit
to get the desired results, it didn't "really" have any influence on the outcome.

If those environmental nuts hadn't started trying to get laws passed to cut back on those nasty "greenhouse gasses" and if Mr. Gore and his
buddies hadn't tried to get rich trading in these so called "carbon credits", nobody would have paid attention to their research and they would have
gotten away with it.

If this would have happened anyplace else, there would have been arrests for fraud, collusion, racketeering and theft, but, since it is politics and
environmental science, they get a pass.

Either you dont understand science, or you havent looked at the science used to defend it.

I reject your assumption that of these two options, one must be true. I understand the science better than most, and see multiple sides to the debate.

I used to bekieve in global warming, as it was taught to me in high school in the 90s. I graduated in 97. Nothing I was taught happened. So I
began looking, having a high aptitude in math and science, which I majored in at college, it wasnt hard to find data that simply destroys the absurd
notions.

You expected the world to come crashing down by 2000? None of the models predicted that which I was taught in school. We seem to be on track with what
was predicted.

I await this data which you say "destroys the absurd notions". There are rouge scientists who think they have enough data to make a better case, but
they are definitely the minority.

I am not going to debate global warming again, it is pointless, believers will not accept any proof as proof of it fallacy. It is more like
arguing about religion than anything else, and imo dumber than beating my head against a wall.

That's fine. I find the same. It seems neither of us is qualified to make much of a claim outside of our beliefs on the matter. I think the science
speaks for itself. You think it says otherwise than I interpret it. All good.

So please just think for yourself, outside of your personal biases, and look back over the data again from an open minded perspective, to
measure and weight the data, and come to your own conclusions.

I do it often. Both sides. I ask myself how it could fit either side. It helps me to see how layered the bias is on each side of the issue. It's
difficult to decipher the truth, but ultimately I must side with the vast majority of scientists who see it a lot better than either of us.

Climate science should be studied, but not by people who thrive in darkness. Why the hell does such stuff need to be classified if it is to benefit
the entire world is what I don't get. Do they love earth so much that they fear *big business* interests will over-take them with manipulation?
That can't be the case because the same people who fund "climate science" are the same people who allow or encourage mass pollution by outsourcing
jobs and capital.

Dark forces have taken over everything. The schools have been polluted with misinformation/disinformation, the internet forums by shills, the
tv/newspapers/radio by shills, the skies with poisonous elements, the ground with industrial waste and nuclear testing, big pharma suppressing cures,
etc.

I don't trust any darkness. Either put up or shut up and you better make a 80% strong case if you want people to believe you.

What if solar anomalies are causing everything, much like NASA said there would increased solar flare and EMP activity the next couple years? They
said satellities could be destroyed and electronics on earth fried up.

We also have to worry about asteroids, both big and small.

I think climate change is nothing more than another tax on life. Sad!

Either the governments are confused(unlikely) or the rich elite know exactly what they are doing.

All this activity could be happening because of Nemesis, the brown/black dwarf companion of our sun, which has a substantial(if not enormous)
gravitional pull. I think every 3600 years the two stars come close to each other and are known to cause problems.

(Sigh) Given the fact that sea ice in the Arctic is at it lowest level ever recorded in historical times, the permafrost of Siberia is melting,
methane hydrates all over the place are destabilising and the weather keeps on getting whackier, is it not possible that the Global Climate Change
people just might have a point? Or will this thread just degenerate into a "Global Warming is a giant fib! The Daily Telegraph says so!"
pit?

I watched a show called Xray earth on national geographic the other night, all I have to say to the nay sayers is watch that show. It isn't based on
arguments. It is an amazing show that brings together a multitude of sciences and the many aspects of what is really happening around the world and
why. It demonstrated to me that there is NO big hidden agenda. For that to happen, there would have to be the paying off of millions of people in
thousands of industries.

sheesh, just go look at the show and you will spend the next decade or so wiping egg off your face.

Originally posted by burntheships
For the first time, the leaker aka as FOIA has published
his thoughts...why he was driven to leak the information,
the players, and the e-mails that he found.

And he is, of course, entitled to his opinion.

He is not entitled to expect others, who have looked into the issue in more detail, to believe him or, indeed, consider him as anything more than a
religious, anti-science nutter with the credibiity of a dead snail running for Pope

And until he reveals who he is, he is a nutter. Period. Science does not hide.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.